User talk:BanRay/Archive 2

I signed in, as you offered

And now i have found out that you were the one who started another interesting article, again about soccer (Baltic League), which is already something that should give you a special barnstar for sports:

		The Running Man Barnstar
		For creating new and improving existing articles about soccer in the former Soviet Union. Szpakowicz (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome aboard! ;) BanRay 17:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed prod on Performance by club in the Commonwealth of Independent States Cup

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Performance by club in the Commonwealth of Independent States Cup, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. I have nominated the article for deletion instead; the debate may be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Performance by club in the Commonwealth of Independent States Cup, which overrides the need for a {{prod}} tag. I have explained my reasons for doing this in my nomination. Thanks! -- Atama ^chat 01:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! ;) BanRay 12:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Papua New Guinea fixtures and results

Hi, I have started to expand the page - perhaps you would be good enough to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Papua New Guinea fixtures and results, please? TerriersFan (talk) 00:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure BanRay 00:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. TerriersFan (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome ;) BanRay 01:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CIS Cup

Hello :-) Remember you said that the value of the cup declined in the whole Soviet Union while i said that only in Russia and Ukraine? Theck this out: [[1]]. The offical Sheriff Teraspol site. Go down and notice: 1. Thy created a big poster celebrating: "5th anniversary to the winning of the CIS Cup", and down their they even made a survey about the chances of the team to win. If the team wouldn't xare they wouldnt talk and think so much about it. ANd look at the photos how Pakhator celebrated it: [[2]]. P.S. A photo from that collection is now at the front page of their web-site. Ventpilis have a whole article about them going to the cup: [3]. The Lithuanian Kanua also already have article about it on theur offical web site: [4]. In Estonia their less exited but they mentioned: [5].

On the contrary, Zenit, Bate and Dinamo havent even even mentioned it on their web sites.

But as you can see, the other teams do care, and alot, esspecially the once who already showed nice results their. The Cup makes many teams who failed abroad to feel strong, to feel they have a chance to win the Cup. Shpakovich 17:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thx

<font=3> Thanks for your support, my request for adminship passed 60/0/0 yesterday!

I want to thank Mrs.EasterBunny and Royalbroil for nominating me, those who updated the RfA tally, and everyone for their support and many kind words. To paraphrase a president ... I wish my mum and dad could see the comments made. My dad would be so proud to see the comments ... and my mum would have believed them". I will do my best to use the new tools carefully and responsibly (and you may be surprised to find that I have not deleted all of the pages by accident..... yet).

Thanks again, Victuallers (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An early RFA meeting to decide if Victuallers can be included as a sysop - use cursor to identify.

Sharapova revert

Why did you revert my edits of the 2007 information? The previous version is full of POV, unencyclopedic, and nonnotable content. It was a complete mess. I am trying to improve this article. Nothing more, nothing less. I would appreciate an explanation and notification on my talk page whenever you revert my edits. Tennis expert (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who said I was offended? You asked me to go the extra mile when I revert your edits (by the way, I've never heard of anyone requesting this before, and I've done thousands of edits), and I was just asking you to do the same for me. Tennis expert (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sharapova

Hi, Could you tell me why you keep reverting my edit to the Sharapova page? I don't see what makes Tennis expert's edit better than mine; from where I'm sitting, it merely looks like he's rewritten what I wrote, without adding extra detail, which in my opinion is kind of rude to do. Thanks 172.143.183.232 (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a set of rules and guidelines, that should be followed. Several established editors have already contacted you regarding the matter, so I don't want to sound repetitive. The fact that you've contacted me on my talk page made me withdraw my request for a block and I'm gonna put it down to your inexperience. You however, should refrain from reverting edits on the page, otherwise you'll get blocked straight away. Just take the whole argument to the talk page and try to reach a consensus there. Cheers! BanRay 23:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hehe, thanks for the barn star mate! have not seen you in a while, but I see that you are still doing a great job! Λua∫Wi se ^(talk) 14:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to thank me, you totally deserved it! BanRay 14:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm... that seems oddly similar to my comment to your comment to my comment with the barn star before. Hehehe... :D. Λua∫Wi se ^(talk) 14:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sue me for copyright infringement, just a coincidence I swear :) BanRay 14:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just might! ;) Λua∫Wi se ^(talk) 14:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Defunct football club categories

Are you sure about citing Wimbledon as an example here [6] and previous, i.e. "(cat, see wimbledon)"?

Wimbldon (as the former club) are in Category:Premier League clubs, as per the lead This category is for teams who have ever played in the Premier League at one point in time.; however, they do not appear in Category:English football clubs as per the lead This category contains articles on association football clubs playing in England., nor is it in List of football clubs in England. (I know Wimbledon cat is a sub cat of Eng clubs, i'm talking solely about the former (defunct) title)

I have no strong opinions either way but it seems inconsistent with the leads, and it makes not a lot of sense having a club in both cats, especially when the defunct cat is a sub cat of the club by country cat. MickMacNee (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. There's actually an issue with wimbledon as they are not legally defunct, but have been renamed and relocated, but the two clubs have separate articles, as well as the spiritual reborn club AFC MickMacNee (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know, but Dons are usually viewed as a separate club anyway. Do they even recognize wimbledon's history? BanRay 17:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which dons?. AFC Wimledon consider themeselves the spiritual Wimbledon FC succesors, but MK Dons are the legal successors, having moved and renamed the club, leaving the Wimbledon FC article as a defunct club in name sense only, as there are articles for both successor clubs, with Wimbledon FC never having become officially or legally defunct. Confused?. MickMacNee (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But MK Dons don't recognize wimbledon's history, do they? Like earthquakes - dynamo in the mls?BanRay 11:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you remove an image...

Umm, I don't see anything rude in what I wrote you. I was just saying to give a good reason. Maybe you wanted me to say please, I dunno. But I'm also here to improve wikipedia, but no one was being rude to you, at least not intentionally. I saw two of those pictures also, but I removed the one in the endorsments section because it was poorly placed there. But then you removed that one up there - I guess you saw that picture down in the endorsment section too lol. or maybe someone reverted my edit. Anyway, no hard feelings. Take care ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

k, no problem, cheers. BanRay 22:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: BBC African Footballer of the Year

I disagree. The link is already there, right above the link. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{play it cool.} 21:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myong-ho

I think Myong-ho is not anymore in Kyrilia Sovetov, it would be great if you put where he is playing now. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bupasival (talk • contribs) 14:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Playerhistory don't have any new information on him, I think he might be back in North Korea. BanRay 15:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'll try to find out something about him, i would also like to thank you for helping people like me from Spain to know about the Russian League, that here we can't watch on TV and it's really difficult to know about it. Also I was impressed reading about the Commonwealth of Independent States, a comptetition I didn't knew it existed. Thanks for all! continue in the same way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bupasival (talk • contribs) 16:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thanks Bupasival, it's great to know that your work is appreciated on here ;) BanRay 16:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sharapova apparent 3 reverts

Huh? That was the first reversion I'd made on the page in over a week, and I was only doing so because Tennis expert had mindlessly reverted my new, constructive edits.

WP:3RR, please read the page carefully BanRay 16:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read it, and still fail to see how I've broken this rule.

An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time. - not done that.

Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. - doesn't apply to me either. My new edits are simply compacting the page, not disruptive in any way.

Efforts to game the system, for example by persistently making three reverts each day or three reverts on each of a group of pages, cast an editor in a poor light and may result in blocks. -not done that either - like I've said that was my first reversion in over a week.

So please point me to the part of the rule which I've apparently broken. Musiclover565 (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are clearly disruptive, if you want to "compact" the page, please go ahead, but do not revert Tennis expert's edits altogether as he has clearly improved the page and has made the content more encyclopedic. BanRay 16:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought standard Wikipedia policy was to "be bold", to edit radically if you saw fit? Well, I do see it fit to dramatically downsize the page. You say "if you want to "compact" the page, please go ahead," but that effectively is what my edits that you reverted were doing! Also, saying "he has clearly improved the page" is your opinion (kind of ironic that you should be preaching your opinion as fact given Wikipedia's stance on objectivity); personally, I thought the purpose of encyclopaedias was to highlight only notable success (like the Martina Hingis article, the only A-grade tennis article), not to list every single result ever achieved.

But in any case, that shouldn't matter anyway, because two weeks ago, Tennis expert completely reverted the work of many other editors, which you perceived as acceptable, so how is me reverting his work unacceptable? Either his initial edits around two weeks ago were unacceptable (in which case, like I suggested at the time, I believe the page should be reverted to its form as of two weeks ago, until a common consensus on the best course of action of the page amongst the regular editors is reached) or my edits now are acceptable. To say it's OK for Tennis expert to completely rewrite the article but it isn't OK for me to is completely contradictory! 92.3.230.33 (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC) (Musiclover565)[reply]

I would appreciate a response to this. Thanks 92.3.230.33 (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was a bit busy. Why am I reverting your edits and not his? Because his changes were proposed on the talk page, but then you came along and decided to revert the whole thing saying something like, "hey guys, you forgot to ask my opinion". Sorry mate but it doesn't work this way. The previous version was a mess and no, it's not just my opinion, the issue was actually raised on the tennis project talk page. If you want to edit the article, propose your changes on the talk page, wait for green light and then proceed. As for Hingis, it's no longer an A class article, in fact it has never been one. I've downgraded it to B as it has never gone through the GA nomination process. BanRay 20:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if I remember correctly, Tennis expert completely rewrote the 2007 section without even a pretence of getting others' opinions, he just went right ahead with it. After that, he "proposed" his edits to the rest of the Career section... posting them on the discussion page literally about 45 minutes before going ahead with them, during which time, no-one gave their approval or disapproval, and nowhere near enough time for myself or any others to check them. In your words, he did not "wait for the green light" like you are saying I should do. You say the article was a "mess" and that other people on the tennis project talk page agree; if you're talking about this page, unless I missed something, only one person stated that it was unencyclopaedic (and from where I'm sitting, I think that individual may have meant only the text about the Australian Open, which I agree was a mess while the tournament was in progress), which again is just one person's opinion. Two people I know actually saw the article in its previous form a couple of weeks ago and said they thought it was very good, so that's two people down as saying they think it was good against two saying it was bad (you and the guy on the project talkpage). Bottom line, we can't base consensus on a couple of opinions, and therefore, like I've suggested all along, I think there should be a discussion on the Sharapova talk page about the best course of action.

like I said on the talk page this morning, until a couple of weeks ago, I would've proposed my articles on the talkpage and waited for approval before going ahead; however, I was then told by Tennis expert and an admin (perhaps you, I can't remember) that it was acceptable to "be bold" and that approval was not necessary, so therefore, if that's true, there was nothing wrong with my edits today. So I'll ask again: is Wikipedia policy that you must wait for approval before going ahead (meaning Tennis expert's initial edits were inappropriate) or is approval unnecessary (in which case, my edits today were fine)?

I stand corrected re: Hingis, but nevertheless, if it was widely proposed as A-grade, then it must be widely agreed that it is a good, encyclopaedic article, and my edits were in the vein of that article. Musiclover565 (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You say you've got two editors supporting your version, I guess I might have missed something, but so far I've seen four established editors (that's Tennis expert, Escape Orbit, PageantUpdater and myself) saying that your version is unencyclopedic and no one (correct me if I'm wrong, I know I might be) supporting your version, well, expect for yourself. As for the rules/guidelines, wikipedia has a lot and some tend to be contradictive, especially with stuff like WP:IGNORE around. Propose your changes and wait for response, reverting other users' edits never works. You might also want to read WP:edit war, another relevant guideline. You don't have to wait for my permission, I don't own the article. Wait for some feedback and, if everyone likes what you propose, go ahead. At the end of the day, we're all trying to improve the encyclopedia here ;) BanRay 23:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you continue to miss the point that I am doing nothing different to what Tennis expert did several weeks ago! Yet again, either what he did initially was inappropriate or what I'm proposing now is appropriate. In line with Wikipedia's be bold policy, I'm going to assume that my new edits are appropriate. You say "reverting other users' edits never work" - in that case, I will thank you not to mindlessly revert my edits. Feel free to edit any parts you believe are unencyclopaedic, but do not revert the whole thing. Thanks. Musiclover565 (talk) 18:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, this conversation is clearly going nowhere. I've left you two warnings, both were ignored. You're welcome to make constructive contributions, once your block has expired. Take care. BanRay 21:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:89.216.188.69

Thanks for your note. Seein' as I'm not checking AIV 24 hours a day and especially when I'm at work, if he is currently active it is appropriate to report him at AIV while he is active. That means he has received progressive warnings after each act of vandalism and has continued to vandaize and is still doing so at the time of the report to AIV. It probably won't do you much good to leave a note on my talk page that I might not see for days. Cheers and happy editng. Dloh cierekim Deleted? 21:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The user is an established vandal, and what is worst, he seems to hit wikipedia where it hurts, since such vandalism is usually overlooked. In fact I think I'm the only one who cleans up his mess. You decided to remove my report, fair enough, but what we have here now is a vandal who has been around for some four months doing the same sort of vandalism day after day and yet he gets away with it because no one can nab him right there. He'll be back tomorrow and I'll revert him, no problem really, takes a few minutes with twinkle, and then the day after tomorrow, maybe that's the way it should be, I don't know. Sure you can't check AIV 24/7, but neither can I follow the guy around. The block log comes in handy in such cases. BanRay 22:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just noted the 3 hour gap. I don't remove from the list if I don't block. That way the report remains where it can be seen if the problem continues. A better place to report long term problems like this might be Wikipedia:Long term abuse or WP:AN/I. Hope that helps. Dloh cierekim Deleted? 23:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a legitamate edit. Looks like he added an info box. Afraid I don't understand the reversion. Dloh cierekim Deleted? 23:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check the stats mate, I always double-check everything before reverting ;) BanRay 23:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Yeah, this sounds like something for WP:AN/I. Long term and subtle. Cheers. Dloh cierekim Deleted? 02:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cheers! BanRay 13:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Talk:Shooting of Latasha Harlins

To be honest, I'm not an expert on all the rules/guidelines of wikipedia, but I've tried my best to moderate the situation on the Talk:Shooting of Latasha Harlins page. I'm quite surprised to see the note on my talk page. I guess I'll just copy what I had on there:

The edit was just to clean up the talk page after it had become rather unproductive. The people who were using the page as a soapbox had cleaned it up before, but this time it seemed like the discussion was done. My intent was only to remove an unused Soapbox section that could only promote more controversy. The default message doesn't seem appropriate here, the article in question is the talk page. It had been suggested that the section of the talk page was unnecessary and agreed upon by tacit consent as the user in question deleted one of his own comments to stop the arguing.

The entire discussion just led from one heated debate to another, so I tried in a calm fashion over time to let the parties express their opinions without silencing them. After they said what needed to be said, I felt there was no longer a need for the section as it was completely unrelated to the talk page. Like I said before though, I'm not an expert and I'm not beyond asking for help. What do you think should be done about the soapbox section on that page? Perhaps I should have done some of the things I've picked up since then and proposed an official deletion, but I did make more informal suggestions on that. Any suggestions for how to deal with the situation would be greatly appreciated. FantajiFan (talk) 07:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment Fantajifan. Wikipedia prohibits removing other users' comments, unless they are in clear violation of WP:ATTACK, although even such removals are usually considered controversial and must be carried out in accordance with WP:ATTACK#Removal of text. I do realize that as a relatively new editor you can't be fully aware of the wikipedia guidelines and some mistakes are unavoidable, so don't worry. You might also want to read WP:TALK. Cheers! BanRay 09:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. I'm curious though, would you consider:

"Of course, those expressing this opinion are of the anonymous hit and run type, who can't be bothered with reading the text or the links. So I'm creating this section for them to speak their anger and ignorance, and so those wanting a real discussion don't have to be disturbed with their useless opinions."

a personal attack? There's a number of personal attacks completely unrelated to the actual article a little higher up in the page as well. The debate went far beyond a content debate. Also, am I not allowed to remove personal attacks unless I'm the person they were directed at? The majority of the text that was deleted in my edit was my own material followed by a heated response which the user seemed to have no problem removing as he did not undo that part. FantajiFan (talk) 15:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you mean about this not sounding that much like a personal attack. This statement wasn't to insult me, especially since I hadn't been part of the discussion until I created the new section. But given the context in which it was written, it seemed like provoking and continuing an ongoing fight I was reading on the page. I don't know if you've had time to read it yet, but the Harlins discussion page has a number of other posts with one person accusing another of being racist and a number of pretty clear personal attacks going back and forth. The section I created was an attempt to try to end the soapbox section created at the bottom which seemed to be an attempt to continue the fighting on the page. Just as a small sampling of the personal attacks:

"Expand YOUR reading from Skinhead Weekly to an encyclopedia, even an online one like this.Then you might understand what a false comparison is. By your own admission, Brawley was never convicted of anything. That's the first step. Ask an adult to explain the rest. 130.156.31.223 21:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)"

"Keep whining, cracker."

"If you have ANY balls at all, answer the very last question on this page that I posted some time ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.212.64.218 (talk) 00:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

A week for that? You're still wasting my time kid. I think in a week you'd learn how to sign your remarks 130.156.30.207 17:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Just as I suspected, NO BALLS. And with that, I give you proof that racists come in all colors. I've won the argument.

THREE weeks for that? And you still don't know how to sign your posts? 130.156.31.250 18:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)"

Given the context, I thought it was appropriate to try to end string of personal attacks. I realize it's controversial to delete a post, and I apologize if it sounds like I'm being annoyingly persistent on this issue. But, I think part of the problem ultimately was I misunderstood #130.156...'s intention by removing one of his own comments made to me. I took that action as a willingness on his part to end the fighting and remove the soapbox section. He didn't give any further reply/objection to the removal of the section (which is what I created my section asking) so I took it as tacit consent. I guess I was mistaken. Like I said before, I didn't mean to come off as silencing someone, I think he's had a sufficient chance to say his fair share, and it looks like the other person in the argument hasn't returned to the page in a while. Perhaps we could just let it be. If I had known about the archiving system, I think I would have tried going for that instead after sufficient time had passed, since much of the material on the page seems very unproductive and hadn't been touched in a while.

Sorry again for taking up so much of your time with this, I was just hoping to make sense of what I did.

Thanks again for all your input. FantajiFan (talk) 00:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping clear up the warning FantajiFan (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem BanRay 10:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth of Independent States Cup 2007

I am trying to improve the article Commonwealth of Independent States Cup 2007 but i have to problems to align the different matches. Do yo know how can i do it? Thanks! Take a look at the page and you will understand what I'm talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bupasival (talk • contribs) 15:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I discovered how to do it, I'm improving the cup of 2007, but I can't find scorers of the 2008 edition. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bupasival (talk • contribs) 15:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Steffi Graf again

What ever happened to no threats? And whatever happened to not getting invovled in edit wars. You directly reverted my edit. Explain your abusive intrusion and continuation of an edit war. And don't dare claim anything about revert limit. I did not at all violate a revert limit and even if I did you are not supposed to go in and revert the last edit yourself. This makes it look like you were in personal contact with the "tennis expert" user and have such abused your position here in a biased fashion. Explain.66.190.29.150 (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "this makes it look like", try getting your facts right first, won't you. Now if you have a constructive argument, go ahead... BanRay 19:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waiting for you to explain your behavior.66.190.29.150 (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm still waiting for an apology for your accusations above, you and Tennis expert are both walking a very thin line with your edit war and, trust me, I'm not gonna hesitate the next time either of you violates the rule. BanRay 11:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin?

Hello BanRay, How are you doing man? Listen, I have checked your history, edit count and came to the conclusion that you could well run for and become a sysop. Your contributions are about 5316, and mainspace 3590. The only weakness would be that you do not have many Wikipedia edits (182). I have already nominated one user who has become a sysop now, would you like to get my nomination mate? Cheers! Λua∫Wi se ^{(Operibus anteire)} 09:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. You do not have to wait all that time my friend, voting at RfA's, AfD's should increase your WP namespace edits, and get you even more familiar with WP policies. If you work hard on that one, you should be ready within a week. (500 would be a realistic goal)

Your 'pedia building record is impressive, how many GA/FA/DYK 's do you have? voters give those much importance.

You have not been in edit wars recently, have you?

Cheers!

Λua∫Wi se ^{(Operibus anteire)} 17:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess it is your decision to make. Whenever you are ready, you know where you can find an RfA nomination :)

Cheers! Λua∫Wi se ^{(Operibus anteire)} 19:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, you totally deserve it!!! :)

As for the e-mail thing, the Wikimedia software refuses to send me a confirmation e-mail on my AOL account, I do not know why.. maybe a bug, or my AOL account is refusing them. I will start a hotmail account tomorrow, and use it on WP, so that I can send and receive e-mails from here :)

Cheers!

Λua∫Wi se ^{(Operibus anteire)} 19:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United Arab Republic

Официальным названием Египта в 1958-1971 годах было Объединённая Арабская Республика. Official name of Egypt in 1958-1971 was United Arab Republic --SeNeKa (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my bad, sorry mate BanRay 19:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dinamo

What is it about Dinamo that I "vandalized"?? The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.232.129.159 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

redirected the page to F.C. Dinamo Bucureşti maybe? BanRay 00:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sharapova again

So, please can you explain to me which of the 64 edits removed information from anything other than the Career section, like you promised? Thanks EDIT: It is the anonymous IP you were having a dispute with fyi... i'm at my grandmother's house atm. 92.4.36.25 (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: It's User:92.1.182.171

Hmm. I guess the was confusion but I thought I'd let you know of my response to that user. See here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Rjd! Seems the user continued with exactly the same activities that got the ip account to be blocked. I'm not gonna revert anything today as it's almost 2 AM here and I want to get some sleep. But thanks for informing me, much appreciated! BanRay 23:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you very much for giving your support to my admin application, which recently closed successfully (36/3/1). I hope I can continue to justify the confidence that you have placed in me. If there is any way that I can help out more, please drop me a line. Thanks again. - 52 Pickup (deal) 22:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marat Safin

Would you help me clean up Marat Safin? With your interest in tennis-related topics and your plethora of barnstars, you seem like you can help me out. Lately, I've been trying to clean up and add sources to Marat Safin, but I just don't know what to keep and what to remove. The article has some OR for sure. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your help. I think we should try to bring it up to GA for now. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 00:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding sources that I could have never found. Do you have any ideas on how his article should be organized? I don't like that it starts off with Grand Slams...Davis Cup and then tracking his progress year by year. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's cool. I agree that it's better to do it year by year since the article is not organized in a consistent manner. I noticed that the beginning of the Grand Slam section covers some of his early career in 2000 when Safin won the US Open. Perhaps we can break that section apart. I guess the problem is that there aren't that many information for the years other than 2005 - 2008. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again !

Hi again ! How are you ? I came back to wikipedia for 2 months being absent. I am going to work on football articles again . Have a nice week Bartekos (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]